From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF95C4320A for ; Sat, 28 Aug 2021 13:26:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8146A60EB5 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 2021 13:26:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234350AbhH1N1D (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Aug 2021 09:27:03 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45930 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230155AbhH1N07 (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Aug 2021 09:26:59 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x12c.google.com (mail-lf1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDAAEC061756 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 2021 06:26:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id o10so20587011lfr.11 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 2021 06:26:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6uDsCE/I1mz2dgB3p/UOzI+ahRGDoiEn1DEziUtrHT8=; b=BU5bZPCoYgUCaamr94UcUImt3GYGfzrPEspvSfdrbVMFjZy7CmnrMWumK0k9MdUCsJ t61wahvUqzU5YZSYaX9fV/lfB1eIo4nou26DwjM+5wgluGQVuQmQdpyrvr3IofrvpIL2 NFm/NcZHHLw+8DdUoVcchQTzfeAWk9sWH0jrVcFsPY9OfrzdYuNlEwiwEaUtfsCmKxHG b/cyPtnGzqMy9cZVx9++7PBzMgYM6P7mmrgcX0/ZktTFClCMBsHJFJFlGjHlegwYm7QC AMh6YFhSHmV8ch9YrW3F7AyI7HPgGzkfNLgj+YDb9/DiFLT4dOlxaXKypKY45WsjmGxz Mrcg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6uDsCE/I1mz2dgB3p/UOzI+ahRGDoiEn1DEziUtrHT8=; b=JE4mBtrco4W4rgo+KXLKnOIaqNvj0QRUkmKzdztUKfPruY0wbRqv/ZiSRcJjuakInu sYWVtcXNqs6aBd2ZbOKZeamCVgNMwaVwPzi3M3C74bUMfHTltQdj3+nO/QPNxquVmBdr RtseNCpqkpWYG1gMan0L8zw0zp6wp5vqI0Whh841mtYENpqBvACPs2a9z1bRbolngI1K tCSQUt9Ksjncp6hOKvNquy31BbwF9oMdHgcIxiTWr1CMiN1kfvc86/bomKktJwQSot9A hFBNUK1wWYfHZBPF0dWNtBDCPHLCdpuFd9jsT+gSD5d8bj6rRm6yj1Aks+YLFs4eUI0M gcmg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532t5uO1/BC0e8iEQRFOYn13/3x5zqBWHsQMkUR9AJFBnzJk4y3M lQAzLk1IMo1MCzCFAxS/WkSiKvxj8R/zQxr6h1Uncw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw8SZc3osLOhZt6mPC7SQCpDXLLie8AUFqMpy2Yk/eWnNAswY30dUvGkml3IEACxty3BmpC4uzC4I03PxjMDC4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:1501:: with SMTP id bq1mr10955598lfb.286.1630157167253; Sat, 28 Aug 2021 06:26:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210810144145.18776-1-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> <20210810144145.18776-7-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> <20210827194503.GB14720@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20210827194503.GB14720@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com> From: Vincent Guittot Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 15:25:56 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] sched/fair: Consider SMT in ASYM_PACKING load balance To: Ricardo Neri Cc: "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" , Ingo Molnar , Juri Lelli , Srikar Dronamraju , Nicholas Piggin , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , Mel Gorman , Len Brown , Srinivas Pandruvada , Tim Chen , Aubrey Li , "Ravi V. Shankar" , Ricardo Neri , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Quentin Perret , "Joel Fernandes (Google)" , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel , Aubrey Li , Daniel Bristot de Oliveira Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 21:45, Ricardo Neri wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 12:13:42PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 16:41, Ricardo Neri > > wrote: > > > @@ -9540,6 +9629,12 @@ static struct rq *find_busiest_queue(struct lb_env *env, > > > nr_running == 1) > > > continue; > > > > > > + /* Make sure we only pull tasks from a CPU of lower priority */ > > > + if ((env->sd->flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING) && > > > + sched_asym_prefer(i, env->dst_cpu) && > > > + nr_running == 1) > > > + continue; > > > > This really looks similar to the test above for SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY. > > More generally speaking SD_ASYM_PACKING and SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY share > > a lot of common policy and I wonder if at some point we could not > > merge their behavior in LB > > I would like to confirm with you that you are not expecting this merge > as part of this series, right? Merging them will probably need more tests on both x86 and Arm so I suppose that we could keep them separate for now Regards, Vincent > > Thanks and BR, > Ricardo